WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM OVERVIEW CAYMUS

Transcription

CAYMUS VINEYARDS WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM OVERVIEW November 1, 2013
Revised July 7, 2014
Project No. 2013044
Page B. 1 WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM OVERVIEW CAYMUS VINEYARDS Rutherford, Napa County, California PROJECT OVERVIEW Caymus Vineyards is applying for a Use Permit Modification for the existing winery facility located in Rutherford, Napa County, California with a production capacity 1.8 Million Gallons of wine per year. The wastewater management system needed to support these operations will be composed of a combined process wastewater and sanitary sewage system. An overview of this management system is discussed in this report. Site Description The property is located at the intersection of Rutherford and Conn Creek Roads, east of the town of Rutherford with Conn Creek running along the eastern edge of the winery facility and through the middle of the parcel. The parcel is relatively flat except for the banks of Conn Creek. The existing winery facility includes an assortment of buildings (some of which will be demolished and rebuilt). An existing irrigation pond and vineyards are located to the east of Conn Creek. WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Wastewater System Description PW and SS will be plumbed separately to two new sumps. Independent forcemains will pump wastewater from the winery to the proposed treatment system. It is proposed to locate a new Lyve System out near the existing irrigation pond. A baffle or berm will be added to the pond so that it can be utilized as equalization and effluent storage. From the effluent storage pond, effluent will be utilized for either onsite surface irrigation disposal or subsurface drip disposal. This section of the wastewater feasibility study details the PW characteristics and proposed wastewater management system. Process Wastewater Characteristics PW will consist primarily of wastewater collected at floor drains and trenches within the winery, receiving, crush, tank, and washdown areas. Any exterior tank and process areas not under a roof will be provided with automated diversion capability to provide a means of routing rainwater to the storm drainage system when those areas are not in use for process purposes. No distillation will occur at the facility; hence there will be no stillage waste. ENCLOSURE B CAYMUS VINEYARDS WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM OVERVIEW November 1, 2013
Project No. 2013044
Page B. 2 Typical winery wastewater characteristics are as summarized below: Characteristic pH Dissolved Oxygen BODs COD Grease Settleable Solids Nonfilterable Residue Volatile Suspended Solids Total Dissolved Solids Nitrogen Nitrate Phosphorous Sodium Alkalinity (CaCO3) Chloride Sulfate ENCLOSURE B Units ‐‐ mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L Crushing Season Range 2.5 ‐ 9.5 0.5 ‐ 8.5 500 – 12,000 800 – 15,000 5 ‐ 30 25 ‐ 100 40 ‐ 800 150 ‐ 700 80 – 2,900 1 ‐ 40 0.5 ‐ 4.8 1 ‐ 10 35 ‐ 200 40 ‐ 730 3 ‐ 250 10 ‐ 75 Non‐crushing Season Range 3.5 ‐ 11.0 1.0 ‐ 10.0 300 – 3,500 500 – 6,000 5 ‐ 50 2 ‐ 100 10 ‐ 400 80 ‐ 350 80 – 2,900 1 ‐ 40 ‐ 1 ‐ 40 35 ‐ 200 10 ‐ 730 3 ‐ 250 20 ‐ 75 CAYMUS VINEYARDS WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM OVERVIEW November 1, 2013
Project No. 2013044
Page B. 3 Sanitary Sewage Characteristics Sanitary sewage (SS) will consist primarily of wastewater generated from restrooms, laboratory, employee kitchen, and tasting room facilities. No process wastewater will be discharged into the SS management system. Typical sanitary sewage characteristics are as summarized below: Raw Wastewater1 Characteristic Units Range BODs mg/L 110 ‐ 220 Grease mg/L 50‐100 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) mg/L 100 ‐ 220 Volatile Suspended Solids mg/L 80 ‐ 165 Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) mg/L 250 ‐ 500 Nitrogen mg/L 20 ‐ 40 Nitrate mg/L 0 Phosphorous mg/L 4 ‐ 8 Alkalinity (CaCO3) mg/L 50 ‐ 100 Chloride mg/L 30 ‐ 50 Sulfate mg/L 20 ‐ 30 1
Typical composition of untreated domestic wastewater, Metcalf & Eddy, “Wastewater Engineering, Third Edition”, 1991 ENCLOSURE B CAYMUS VINEYARDS WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM OVERVIEW November 1, 2013
Project No. 2013044
Page B. 4 Process Wastewater Design Flows Based on typical flow data from wineries of similar size and characteristics and corresponding PW generation rates, projected flows are calculated as follows: Phase I ‐ Annual Volume Annual production (projected) = 4,000 tons grapes/year Wine production (assumed) = 165 gal wine/ton grapes Annual production (projected) = 660,000 gal wine/year PW generation rate (assumed) = 4 gal PW/gal wine PW flow = 660,000 gal wine x 4 gal PW/gal wine = 2,640,000 gal PW/year = 7,232 gal PW/day Average Day Flow 2,640,000 gal PW/365 days Average Day, Peak Month Flow The harvest month of September accounts for approximately 16.4 percent of the annual PW flow. 2,640,000 gal PW x (0.164) 30 day = 14,432 gal PW/day = 16,500 gal PW/day Napa County Peak Day 660,000 gallons wine x 1.5 60 day harvest The peak PW flow rate for Phase I is expected to be 16,500 gal/day. Phase II ‐ Annual Volume Annual production (projected) = 10,909 tons grapes/year Wine production (assumed) = 165 gal wine/ton grapes Annual production (projected) = 1,800,000 gal wine/year ENCLOSURE B CAYMUS VINEYARDS WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM OVERVIEW November 1, 2013
Project No. 2013044
Page B. 5 PW generation rate (assumed) = 4 gal PW/gal wine PW flow = 1,800,000 gal wine x 4 gal PW/gal wine = 7,200,000 gal PW/year = 19,726 gal PW/day Average Day Flow 7,200,000 gal PW/365 days Average Day, Peak Month Flow The harvest month of September accounts for approximately 16.4 percent of the annual PW flow. 7,200,000 gal PW x (0.164) 30 day = 39,360 gal PW/day = 45,000 gal PW/day Napa County Peak Day 1,800,000 gallons wine x 1.5 60 day harvest The peak PW flow rate for Phase II is expected to be 45,000 gal/day. Sanitary Sewage Design Flows The proposed winery SS flows at Caymus will consist of typical wastewater generated from restrooms, laboratory, and employee kitchen facilities. The anticipated peak winery SS flow is summarized below: Peak Tasting Day w/o Event Employee (full‐time) Employee (part‐time) Public Tasting Visitors Private Visitors Total 50 14 250 550 x x x x 15 15 3 3 gpcd gpcd gpcd gpcd = = = = = 750 210 750 1,650 3,360 gal/day gal/day gal/day gal/day gal/day Peak Tasting Day w/ Event Employee (full‐time) Employee (part‐time) Tasting Visitors Private Visitors Event Visitors Total 50 14 250 550 100 x x x x x 15 15 3 3 15 gpcd gpcd gpcd gpcd gpcd = = = = = = 750 210 750 1,650 1,500 4,860 gal/day gal/day gal/day gal/day gal/day gal/day ENCLOSURE B CAYMUS VINEYARDS WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM OVERVIEW November 1, 2013
Project No. 2013044
Page B. 6 The peak SS flow rate is expected to be 4,860 gal/day. Total Wastewater Design Flows Phase I ‐ The peak flow rate from the two waste streams for Phase I is expected to be 21,360 gpd (16,500 gpd of PW and 4,860 gpd of SS). The Lyve System for Phase I will be designed to treat a wastewater flow of 25,000 gpd. Phase II ‐ The peak flow rate from the two waste streams for Phase I is expected to be 49,860 gpd (45,000 gpd of PW and 4,860 gpd of SS). The Lyve System for Phase II will be designed to treat a wastewater flow of 50,000 gpd. Wastewater Conveyance, Treatment and Disposal The winery treatment and disposal system will consist of the components described below. Refer to the wastewater management system schematic in Enclosure A for a flow diagram of the wastewater management system. 1) Initial screening – Provided by screened baskets and strainers installed on the trench drains and floor drains within the winery. Screen opening sizes will be approximately 1/4 inch for exterior drains and 1/8 inch for interior drains. 2) Gravity collection system – New gravity collection piping to serve the winery PW and SS should be designed to provide low maintenance and no infiltration or exfiltration. Piping must satisfy Uniform Plumbing Code and local requirements. 3) Septic Tanks – There is a series of existing septic tanks that will be continued to be used. These tanks will overflow SS into the new sump pump. 4) Screening/Settling Tank – It is proposed to utilize the existing solids screen prior to sending PW out to the equalization zone/Lyve system. 5) PW/SS Sump Pumps – Two sumps are proposed, each for the collection of either PW or SS. A duplex sump pump will be capable of pumping either the PW or SS flows, with lead/lag and alternating pump capabilities, out to the equalization pond. The lead pump would be used for all but the most extreme wastewater flow conditions. The second (lag) pump would be activated during peak hour events or similar events of infrequent occurrence and short duration. Duplex pumps have been designed to provide for redundancy of operation in case of a single pump failure. The PW and SS Sumps will be fitted with a High Water Alarms (HWA) as a means to warn operating staff of a problem and pump malfunction. Storage above the HWA would provide some additional factor of safety. This allows for some level of continued facility operation in case of equipment failure or power outage. ENCLOSURE B CAYMUS VINEYARDS WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM OVERVIEW November 1, 2013
Project No. 2013044
Page B. 7 6) Flow measurement – An inline flow measurement device will be provided to measure flows from the winery to the treatment system 7) Phase I Lyve System – Treatment of combined wastewater will be accomplished in a new Lyve treatment system which is a packaged treatment systems specifically oriented towards winery wastewater. Lyve utilizes aerobic activated sludge treatment in a modular design. These systems are capable of producing high quality effluent while taking up a small footprint. A custom, above grade concrete treatment tank will be utilized for the Lyve system. Internal zones are proposed to be located inside the treatment tank to compartmentalize the treatment system. a. Equalization Zone – Combined wastewater from the sump will be pumped to an approximate 84,000 gallon equalization zone will be provided to allow for equalization (EQ) of peak flows prior to treatment in the Lyve system. Aeration will be provided in the equalization zone to allow for adequate mixing of the wastewater to occur. b. pH adjustment – A HACH pH analyzer/controller and a chemical dosing pump will be provided by Lyve for automatic adjusting for influent pH to remain between 6.8 and 7.2 pH units. Magnesium hydroxide will be used for pH adjustment in the wastewater stream. c. MBBR Zone – An approximate 45,000 gallon compartment zone is provided in the treatment tank for biological treatment. The MBBR zone will contain plastic media which provides surface area for biomass to develop. Aeration is provided in this zone to promote biological growth and degradation of wastewater flows. d. Activated Sludge Zone – An approximate 120,000 gallon activated sludge zone is provided in the treatment tank downstream of the MBBR zone to further treat process wastewater flows through activated sludge treatment. A coarse bubble diffuser is provided to allow for mixing and further degradation of wastewater flows. e. Clarifier ‐ Following the activated sludge zone, the wastewater passes into a separate 9‐oot diameter clarifier where clean effluent decants off the top and solids settle to the bottom. Clarified effluent will flow to the effluent storage pond, then to a media filter, disinfected (via UV or Peroxyacetic acid) and then land applied through surface drip. Solids that settle to the bottom of the clarifier are pumped back to the selector zone. A measured amount of sludge is wasted to sludge digesters. f.
Sludge Digester Zone – An approximate 20,000 gallon sludge digester zone will be provided in the main treatment tank for storage and digestion of wasted activated sludge from the clarifier. Periodic off‐hauling or onsite pressing of the accumulated solids in the digester will be required unless an onsite sludge dewatering system is installed. The above grade equipment will sit on a concrete pad with external dimensions of 106’ long by 44’ wide with an enclosure housing all pumping, aeration and control equipment. A control panel will be ENCLOSURE B CAYMUS VINEYARDS WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM OVERVIEW November 1, 2013
Project No. 2013044
Page B. 8 provided for control of the blowers, pH monitoring and correction system, foam control, influent pump, effluent pump and other ancillary items. This system will include web based monitoring capabilities. 8) Phase II Lyve System – To support Phase II, a Lyve treatment system that is identical to what is required for Phase I (what’s outlined above) will need to be installed for Phase II to support a total design flow of 50,000 gpd. 9) Effluent storage pond – Effluent from the Lyve treatment system for Phase I and Phase II will flow to an approximate 1.9 MGallon effluent storage pond (an existing irrigation pond that will be converted to an effluent storage pond). 10) Flow measurement – An inline magnetic flow measurement device will be provided following the irrigation pump. This will allow for measurement of flows from the effluent storage pond to the subsurface or surface disposal system. 11) Effluent Surface Disposal –Final reuse (disposal) of effluent shall be accomplished by drip irrigation of a minimum of 5.0 acres (Phase I) and 7.0 acres (Phase II) of vineyard and/or landscape. The irrigation demand of the vineyard far exceeds the estimated annual wastewater volume (see Pond Water Balance in Enclosure D). To meet the additional irrigation demand the treated wastewater will be supplemented with irrigation water. Other Considerations ODOR CONTROL There should be no noxious odors from a properly designed and operated treatment system of these types. See Alternative Courses of Action for operation alternatives for unforeseen conditions. GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION The nearest water well to the wastewater treatment and disposal system will be a minimum of 100 feet. No disposal of reclaimed wastewater will occur within 100 feet of any existing wells. Irrigation/disposal of treated effluent is considered a beneficial use and is considered an effective means to protect groundwater quality. PROTECTION Exposed wastewater treatment facilities should be posted with appropriate warning signs. ALTERNATIVE COURSES OF ACTION Although no operational difficulties are foreseen, the following additional courses of action would be available ENCLOSURE B CAYMUS VINEYARDS WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM OVERVIEW November 1, 2013
Project No. 2013044
Page B. 9 if necessary: 1) Ability to add carbon dioxide to reduce pH at the pretreatment site or installation of another type of pH control 2) Increased use of irrigation/disposal area to increase discharge capacity 3) Aeration in the effluent storage pond to improve effluent quality The effluent storage pond will be sized for retention of wastewater effluent through the majority of the rainy season with minimal discharges to irrigation areas (if surface applied). Should there be a winter with more rainfall than the design condition; several operational procedures are available to compensate: 1) Additional water conservation at winery 2) Light irrigation during periods between storms – not exceeding the assimilative capacity of the soil 3) Increased irrigation during the months of planned irrigation 4) Pumping and truck transfer of treated and diluted wastewater to an approved treatment plant or land disposal site SOLID WASTES Solid wastes from the winery include primarily pomace, seeds, and stems. The estimated quantities of these wastes (at ultimate capacity) are as follows: 1
165
660,000
35%
1,400
Based on a unit weight of 38 pounds per cubic foot, the annual volume of solids wastes would be: 1,400
2,800,000lbs
2000
1
1
38
2,800,000 1
27
2729
1
165
1,800,000
35%
3,818
Based on a unit weight of 38 pounds per cubic foot, the annual volume of solids wastes would be: ENCLOSURE B CAYMUS VINEYARDS WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM OVERVIEW November 1, 2013
Project No. 2013044
Page B. 10 3,818
7,636,364lbs
2000
1
1
38
7,636,364 1
27
7,443
These organic solids will be composted, spread on the vineyard, and disked in as a soil conditioner and supplemental nutrient source on a routine basis. This quantity of solids wastes is to be applied to the approximate onsite vineyard or will be hauled to an off‐site composting location to reduce the application depth, if needed. ENCLOSURE B SUMMIT ENGINEERING, INC.
Consulting Civil Engineers
CAYMUS - RUTHERFORD
Pond Water Balance - PHASE I
Process Wastewater Design Criteria
DESIGN CRITERIA
FULL PRODUCTION
Annual Production
PW Generation Rate
Annual PW Flow
Months of Harvest
Average Day PW Flow
Average Day Harvest PW Flow
Average Day Peak Harvest Month PW Flow
Average Day SS Flows
Peak SS Flows
660,000
4.0
2,640,000
Aug-Oct
7,240
11,500
14,400
3,360
4,860
EQ Zone
Lyve System Inflow/Outflow
PROJECT NO.
BY:
CHK:
gal wine/year
gal PW/gal wine
gal PW/year
gal
gal
gal
gal
gal
PW/day
PW/day
PW/day
SS/day
SS/day
*2 events planned per month
84,000 gallons
25,000 gal PW/day
Effluent Storage Pond
1.901 Mgal
Effluent Storage Pond HRT
Total HRT
116.2 days
116.2 days
(based on harvest flows)
DESIGN PROCESS WASTEWATER FLOWS
Month
August
September
October
November
December
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
Total
a
Monthly
Percentage of
Annual Flowa
(%)
10.5%
16.4%
12.9%
7.4%
6.4%
6.6%
7.2%
7.6%
6.8%
6.4%
5.6%
6.2%
100%
Monthly PW
Flow
(Mgal)
0.276
0.433
0.340
0.196
0.169
0.173
0.191
0.201
0.179
0.170
0.148
0.164
2.640
Approx
Monthly SS
Flow
(Mgal)
0.107
0.104
0.107
0.104
0.107
0.107
0.097
0.107
0.104
0.107
0.104
0.107
1.262
Monthly
PW & SS
Flow
(Mgal)
0.383
0.537
0.447
0.299
0.277
0.280
0.288
0.309
0.283
0.277
0.252
0.271
3.902
Average Daily
Flow
(gal/day)
12,358
17,892
14,432
9,982
8,920
9,047
10,277
9,954
9,421
8,949
8,383
8,733
Monthly percentage of annual flow based on average of PW flow data from 11 wineries.
Page 1 of 5
2013044
GG
AS
SUMMIT ENGINEERING, INC.
CAYMUS - RUTHERFORD
Climate Data
Reference
Evapotranspirationb Pan Evaporationc Lake Evaporationd Average Precipitatione 10-Year Precipitationf
(in)
(in)
(in)
(in)
(in)
August
31
6.4
12.1
9.3
0.1
0.2
4.9
8.7
6.7
0.4
0.6
September 30
31
3.5
5.7
4.4
2.1
3.2
October
30
1.6
2.5
1.9
5.5
8.5
November
31
1.2
1.7
1.3
5.9
9.1
December
31
1.0
1.6
1.2
7.9
12.1
January
28
1.5
2.2
1.7
5.9
9.1
February
March
31
2.9
3.8
2.9
4.7
7.2
April
30
4.7
5.9
4.5
1.9
2.9
31
5.8
9.0
6.9
0.4
0.6
May
June
30
6.9
11.0
8.5
0.1
0.2
31
7.2
13.5
10.4
0.0
0.0
July
Total
365
47.7
77.7
59.8
34.9
53.6
a
Average monthly temperature at St. Helena, 1961-1990. See http://www.worldclimate.com
b
Average monthly reference evaporation rates for Oakville (#77), 1989-2004 CIMIS, See http://www.cimis.water.ca.gov/cimis/data.jsp
c
Average monthly pan evaporation rates observed at Santa Rosa, Sonoma County, CA 1958-1970. Source James Goodridge.
d
Pan evaporation rates adjusted by a factor of 0.77 to determine lake evaporation.
e
Average monthly rainfall observed at St. Helena, 1961-1990, See http://www.worldclimate.com
f
Average monthly rainfall adjusted by the ratio of 10-yr and 100-yr wet year return storm identified by Pearsons Log III Distribution (St. Helena)
Month
Days
Average
Tempa
(F)
70.7
67.6
61.7
52.3
46.6
46
50.2
52.3
56.3
62.4
68
71.1
PROJECT NO.
BY:
CHK:
Page 2 of 5
2013044
GG
AS
100-Year Precipitationf
(in)
0.2
0.9
4.9
12.7
13.7
18.3
13.7
10.9
4.4
0.9
0.2
0.0
80.9
Bottom Width
Bottom Length
Interior Side Slope (x:1)
Length:Width
Depth
(ft)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
85.0'
270.0'
3.0
0.3
Length
(ft)
270
276
282
288
294
300
306
312
318
324
330
CAYMUS - RUTHERFORD
Pond Worksheet
Bottom Radius
Top Radius
Depth
Freeboard
Width
(ft)
85
91
97
103
109
115
121
127
133
139
145
Page 3 of 5
Radius
(ft)
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
PROJECT NO.
BY:
CHK:
15.0'
35.0'
10.0'
2.0'
Start Month
Min. Depth
Divert Volume
Initial Depth
Surface Area
(ft2)
22,758
24,869
27,046
29,287
31,594
33,966
36,403
38,906
41,473
44,106
46,804
2013044
GG
AS
August
3.0'
4.08 Mgal
4.0'
Total Volume
(Mgal)
0.000
0.178
0.372
0.583
0.811
1.056
1.319
1.601
1.901
2.222
2.562
Month
August
September
October
November
December
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
Total
Month
August
September
October
November
December
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
Total
Tank Evaporation
(Mgal)
-0.0012
-0.0009
-0.0006
-0.0003
-0.0002
-0.0002
-0.0002
-0.0004
-0.0006
-0.0009
-0.0011
-0.0013
-0.008
Actual PW
Inflow
(Mgal)
0.383
0.537
0.447
0.299
0.277
0.280
0.288
0.309
0.283
0.277
0.252
0.271
3.902
PROJECT NO.
BY:
CHK:
CAYMUS - RUTHERFORD
Lyve System
10 Year
Precipitation
(Mgal)
0.000020
0.000080
0.000419
0.001096
0.001176
0.001574
0.001176
0.000937
0.000379
0.000080
0.000020
0.000000
0.00696
Initial Volume
Pond
Evaporation
PW Inflow
(Mgal)
0.811
1.014
1.428
1.867
1.902
1.901
1.901
1.902
1.902
1.802
1.522
1.175
(Mgal)
-0.184
-0.140
-0.102
-0.049
-0.035
-0.031
-0.043
-0.076
-0.117
-0.175
-0.202
-0.226
-1.379
(Mgal)
0.382
0.536
0.447
0.300
0.278
0.282
0.289
0.309
0.282
0.277
0.250
0.269
3.901
Volume Change
(Mgal)
0.382
0.536
0.447
0.300
0.278
0.282
0.289
0.309
0.282
0.277
0.250
0.269
3.901
Pond No.
10 Year
Precipitation
(Mgal)
0.004
0.018
0.094
0.247
0.265
0.354
0.265
0.211
0.085
0.018
0.004
0.000
1.565
2013044
GG
AS
Divert
Volume
(Mgal)
0.382
0.536
0.447
0.300
0.278
0.282
0.289
0.309
0.282
0.277
0.250
0.269
3.901
Surface
Area
(ft2)
Volume
Change
Total
Volume
Divert
Volume
Final Volume
(Mgal)
0.203
0.414
0.439
0.498
0.507
0.605
0.511
0.444
0.251
0.120
0.053
0.043
4.087
(Mgal)
1.014
1.428
1.867
2.365
2.409
2.506
2.412
2.346
2.152
1.922
1.575
1.218
(Mgal)
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.463
0.508
0.605
0.510
0.444
0.350
0.400
0.400
0.400
4.080
(Mgal)
1.014
1.428
1.867
1.902
1.901
1.901
1.902
1.902
1.802
1.522
1.175
0.818
Page 4 of 5
*neglect precipitation and assume up to 25,000 gpd in & out
208
208
208
208
208
208
208
208
208
208
208
208
Final
Pond
Depth
(ft)
4.8
6.3
7.8
8.0
7.9
7.9
8.0
8.0
7.6
6.7
5.4
4.0
Volume
Check
Surface
Area
(Mgal)
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.463
0.508
0.605
0.510
0.444
0.251
0.020
0.000
0.000
2.801
31,594
33,492
37,154
40,960
41,473
41,216
41,216
41,473
41,473
40,446
38,155
34,941
(ft2)
Applied Irrigation Area
Vineyard
Pasture
Total Area Available for Irrigation
Month
August
September
October
November
December
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
Total
Reference ETa
(in)
6.4
4.9
3.5
1.6
1.2
1.0
1.5
2.9
4.7
5.8
6.9
7.2
47.7
PROJECT NO.
BY:
CHK:
CAYMUS - RUTHERFORD
Irrigation & Effluent Application Rates
5.0
Vineyard
Pasture
Pasture Crop
b
Coefficient
Vineyard
Crop
c
Coefficient
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.5
0.3
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.6
0.7
0.6
2013044
GG
AS
acres
acres
acres
acres
Pasture ETd
Vineyard
d
ET
Precipitatione
(in)
5.8
4.4
3.2
1.3
0.9
0.8
1.2
2.3
4.2
5.2
6.2
6.5
42.1
(in)
2.9
1.3
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.8
3.4
4.9
4.6
18.0
(in)
0.2
0.6
3.2
8.5
9.1
12.1
9.1
7.2
2.9
0.6
0.2
0.0
53.6
Irrigation
f
Demand
(in)
5.6
3.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.3
4.6
6.0
6.5
27.9
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(Mgal)
0.767
0.512
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.179
0.628
0.817
0.882
3.8
Operating Days
g
per Month
(d)
31
30
16
14
5
6
5
12
13
16
17
30
195.0
Percolation
h
Capacity
(in)
446.40
432.00
230.40
201.60
72.00
86.40
72.00
172.80
187.20
230.40
244.80
432.00
2808.0
(Mgal)
60.647
58.691
31.302
27.389
9.782
11.738
9.782
23.476
25.433
31.302
33.258
58.691
381.5
Assimilative
i
Capacity
(in)
452.0
435.8
230.4
201.6
72.0
86.4
72.0
172.8
188.5
235.0
250.8
438.5
2835.9
(Mgal)
61.414
59.203
31.302
27.389
9.782
11.738
9.782
23.476
25.612
31.930
34.075
59.572
385.3
Effluent
Applied
(Mgal)
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.463
0.508
0.605
0.510
0.444
0.350
0.400
0.400
0.400
4.1
Average monthly reference evapotranspiration rates, see Climate Data Worksheet.
Kc coefficients for pasture from Table 5-1, "Irrigation with Reclaimed Municipal Wastewater-A Guidance Manual"- California State Water Resources Control Board, July 1984 (San Joaquin Valley).
Kc coefficients for vineyards from Table 5-12, Irrigation with Reclaimed Municipal Wastewater - A Guidance Manual, 84-1 wr, SWRCB.
ET=ETo x Kc. A weighted value is determined on the basis of the available irrigated acreage of vineyard and pasture.
Precipitation, 10-year rainfall event, see Climate Data Worksheet.
Irrigation Demand = ET-Precipitation, inches. A weighted value is determined on the basis of the available irrigated acreage of vineyard and pasture.
Number of operating days per month based on estimated irrigation days available based on 24-hr pre/post storm criteria for a 100-year return period. Summit Engineering, NBRID Capacity Study, April 1996.
Design percolation rate is a maximum of 0.58 inches per day for the number of operating day per month. Design perc rate based on Napa County Soils Survey information (Bale Loam is the limiting soil @ 0.6 in/hr permeability)
adjusted by a 0.04 safety factor to account for typical slow rate land application design methodology.
(i) Assimilative capacity is the sum of irrigation demand and percolation applied.
Page 5 of 5
(in)
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.41
3.74
4.46
3.76
3.27
2.58
2.95
2.95
2.95
30.1
Excess
Capacity
(Mgal)
61.41
59.20
31.30
26.93
9.27
11.13
9.27
23.03
25.26
31.53
33.67
59.17
381.19
CAYMUS - RUTHERFORD
Pond Water Balance - PHASE II
Process Wastewater Design Criteria
DESIGN CRITERIA
FULL PRODUCTION
Annual Production
PW Generation Rate
Annual PW Flow
Months of Harvest
Average Day PW Flow
Peak SS Flows
1,800,000
4.0
7,200,000
Aug-Oct
19,730
31,200
39,300
3,360
4,860
EQ Zone
Lyve System Max Inflow/Outflow
PROJECT NO.
BY:
CHK:
gal wine/year
gal PW/gal wine
gal PW/year
gal
gal
gal
gal
gal
PW/day
PW/day
PW/day
SS/day
SS/day
*2 events planned per month
84,000 gallons
50,000 gal PW/day
1.901 Mgal
Total HRT
38.0 days
38.0 days
Month
August
September
October
November
December
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
Total
a
Monthly
Percentage of
Annual Flowa
(%)
10.5%
16.4%
12.9%
7.4%
6.4%
6.6%
7.2%
7.6%
6.8%
6.4%
5.6%
6.2%
100%
Monthly PW
Flow
(Mgal)
0.753
1.181
0.928
0.534
0.462
0.473
0.520
0.549
0.488
0.464
0.403
0.446
7.200
Approx
Monthly SS
Flow
(Mgal)
0.107
0.104
0.107
0.104
0.107
0.107
0.097
0.107
0.104
0.107
0.104
0.107
1.262
Monthly
PW & SS
Flow
(Mgal)
0.860
1.285
1.035
0.637
0.569
0.580
0.617
0.656
0.591
0.571
0.507
0.553
8.462
Average Daily
Flow
(gal/day)
27,733
42,820
33,389
21,247
18,358
18,702
22,039
21,177
19,717
18,435
16,887
17,846
Page 1 of 5
2013044
GG
AS
CAYMUS - RUTHERFORD
Climate Data
Reference
(in)
(in)
(in)
(in)
(in)
August
31
6.4
12.1
9.3
0.1
0.2
4.9
8.7
6.7
0.4
0.6
September 30
31
3.5
5.7
4.4
2.1
3.2
October
30
1.6
2.5
1.9
5.5
8.5
November
31
1.2
1.7
1.3
5.9
9.1
December
31
1.0
1.6
1.2
7.9
12.1
January
28
1.5
2.2
1.7
5.9
9.1
February
March
31
2.9
3.8
2.9
4.7
7.2
April
30
4.7
5.9
4.5
1.9
2.9
31
5.8
9.0
6.9
0.4
0.6
May
June
30
6.9
11.0
8.5
0.1
0.2
31
7.2
13.5
10.4
0.0
0.0
July
Total
365
47.7
77.7
59.8
34.9
53.6
a
b
c
d
e
f
Month
Days
Average
Tempa
(F)
70.7
67.6
61.7
52.3
46.6
46
50.2
52.3
56.3
62.4
68
71.1
PROJECT NO.
BY:
CHK:
Page 2 of 5
2013044
GG
AS
(in)
0.2
0.9
4.9
12.7
13.7
18.3
13.7
10.9
4.4
0.9
0.2
0.0
80.9
Bottom Width
Bottom Length
Length:Width
Depth
(ft)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
85.0'
270.0'
3.0
0.3
Length
(ft)
270
276
282
288
294
300
306
312
318
324
330
CAYMUS - RUTHERFORD
Pond Worksheet
Bottom Radius
Top Radius
Depth
Freeboard
Width
(ft)
85
91
97
103
109
115
121
127
133
139
145
Page 3 of 5
Radius
(ft)
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
PROJECT NO.
BY:
CHK:
15.0'
35.0'
10.0'
2.0'
Start Month
Min. Depth
Divert Volume
Initial Depth
Surface Area
(ft2)
22,758
24,869
27,046
29,287
31,594
33,966
36,403
38,906
41,473
44,106
46,804
2013044
GG
AS
August
3.0'
8.61 Mgal
4.0'
Total Volume
(Mgal)
0.000
0.178
0.372
0.583
0.811
1.056
1.319
1.601
1.901
2.222
2.562
Month
August
September
October
November
December
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
Total
Month
August
September
October
November
December
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
Total
Tank Evaporation
(Mgal)
-0.0012
-0.0009
-0.0006
-0.0003
-0.0002
-0.0002
-0.0002
-0.0004
-0.0006
-0.0009
-0.0011
-0.0013
-0.008
Actual PW
Inflow
(Mgal)
0.860
1.285
1.035
0.637
0.569
0.580
0.617
0.656
0.591
0.571
0.507
0.553
8.462
PROJECT NO.
BY:
CHK:
CAYMUS - RUTHERFORD
Lyve System
10 Year
Precipitation
(Mgal)
0.000020
0.000080
0.000419
0.001096
0.001176
0.001574
0.001176
0.000937
0.000379
0.000080
0.000020
0.000000
0.00696
Initial Volume
Pond
Evaporation
PW Inflow
(Mgal)
0.811
1.090
1.749
1.902
1.902
1.902
1.902
1.901
1.902
1.861
1.622
1.226
(Mgal)
-0.184
-0.143
-0.110
-0.050
-0.035
-0.031
-0.043
-0.076
-0.117
-0.177
-0.206
-0.229
-1.400
(Mgal)
0.859
1.284
1.035
0.638
0.570
0.581
0.618
0.657
0.591
0.571
0.506
0.552
8.461
Volume Change
(Mgal)
0.859
1.284
1.035
0.638
0.570
0.581
0.618
0.657
0.591
0.571
0.506
0.552
8.461
Pond No.
10 Year
Precipitation
(Mgal)
0.004
0.018
0.094
0.247
0.265
0.354
0.265
0.211
0.085
0.018
0.004
0.000
1.565
2013044
GG
AS
Divert
Volume
(Mgal)
0.859
1.284
1.035
0.638
0.570
0.581
0.618
0.657
0.591
0.571
0.506
0.552
8.461
Surface
Area
(ft2)
Volume
Change
Total
Volume
Divert
Volume
Final Volume
(Mgal)
0.679
1.159
1.019
0.835
0.800
0.904
0.840
0.792
0.559
0.411
0.304
0.323
8.626
(Mgal)
1.490
2.249
2.769
2.737
2.702
2.806
2.741
2.694
2.461
2.272
1.926
1.549
(Mgal)
0.400
0.500
0.867
0.835
0.800
0.904
0.840
0.792
0.600
0.650
0.700
0.720
8.608
(Mgal)
1.090
1.749
1.902
1.902
1.902
1.902
1.901
1.902
1.861
1.622
1.226
0.829
Page 4 of 5
*neglect precipitation
208
208
208
208
208
208
208
208
208
208
208
208
Final
Pond
Depth
(ft)
5.1
7.4
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
7.9
8.0
7.8
7.0
5.6
4.0
Volume
Check
Surface
Area
(Mgal)
0.000
0.348
0.867
0.835
0.800
0.904
0.840
0.792
0.559
0.371
0.025
0.000
6.342
31,594
34,210
39,933
41,473
41,473
41,473
41,473
41,216
41,473
40,960
38,906
35,429
(ft2)
Vineyard
Pasture
Month
August
September
October
November
December
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
Total
Reference ETa
(in)
6.4
4.9
3.5
1.6
1.2
1.0
1.5
2.9
4.7
5.8
6.9
7.2
47.7
PROJECT NO.
BY:
CHK:
CAYMUS - RUTHERFORD
7.0
Vineyard
Pasture
Pasture Crop
b
Coefficient
Vineyard
Crop
c
Coefficient
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.5
0.3
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.6
0.7
0.6
2013044
GG
AS
acres
acres
acres
acres
Pasture ETd
Vineyard
d
ET
Precipitatione
(in)
5.8
4.4
3.2
1.3
0.9
0.8
1.2
2.3
4.2
5.2
6.2
6.5
42.1
(in)
2.9
1.3
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.8
3.4
4.9
4.6
18.0
(in)
0.2
0.6
3.2
8.5
9.1
12.1
9.1
7.2
2.9
0.6
0.2
0.0
53.6
Irrigation
f
Demand
(in)
5.6
3.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.3
4.6
6.0
6.5
27.9
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(Mgal)
1.073
0.717
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.251
0.879
1.143
1.234
5.3
Operating Days
g
per Month
(d)
31
30
16
14
5
6
5
12
13
16
17
30
195.0
Percolation
h
Capacity
(in)
446.40
432.00
230.40
201.60
72.00
86.40
72.00
172.80
187.20
230.40
244.80
432.00
2808.0
(Mgal)
84.906
82.167
43.822
38.345
13.695
16.433
13.695
32.867
35.606
43.822
46.561
82.167
534.1
Assimilative
i
Capacity
(in)
452.0
435.8
230.4
201.6
72.0
86.4
72.0
172.8
188.5
235.0
250.8
438.5
2835.9
(Mgal)
85.979
82.884
43.822
38.345
13.695
16.433
13.695
32.867
35.857
44.702
47.705
83.401
539.4
Effluent
Applied
(Mgal)
0.400
0.500
0.867
0.835
0.800
0.904
0.840
0.792
0.600
0.650
0.700
0.720
8.6
Page 5 of 5
(in)
2.10
2.63
4.56
4.39
4.21
4.76
4.42
4.17
3.16
3.42
3.68
3.79
45.3
Excess
Capacity
(Mgal)
85.58
82.38
42.96
37.51
12.89
15.53
12.85
32.07
35.26
44.05
47.00
82.68
530.78
CIVIL
October 29, 2015 Choose an item.
Melissa Gunter SF Regional Water Quality Control Board 1515 Clay Street Oakland, CA 94612 RE: Caymus Rutherford UP Assistance Project Number 2013044 Dear Ms. Gunter: STRUCTURAL
ELECTRICAL
WATER | WASTEWATER
An amendment to the current Use Permit Modification application (P12‐00122) was recently submitted to Napa County for Caymus Vineyards. The recent submittal reflects a reduced project description, including a reduction in wine production along with no additional employees, visitation, and events: 
Proposed Phase I wine production (no change to existing entitlement) = 110,000 gallons (reduced from previously proposed 660,000 gallons) Proposed Phase II wine production = 660,000 gallons (reduced from previously proposed 1,800,000 gallons) Maintain existing employee count = 42 FT and 14 PT (reduced from previously proposed 50 FT and 14 PT) Maintain existing visitation count = 450 maximum (reduced from previously proposed 850 visitors maximum) Maintain pre‐WDO events (previously additional events were proposed) 



For Phase I (no change to existing entitlement), process wastewater (PW) and sanitary sewage (SS) will continue to be plumbed and treated separately in their respective, existing systems. For Phase II, PW and SS will ultimately be combined at the existing Lyve System. Effluent will be sent from the Lyve System out to the existing irrigation pond, which is proposed to be converted to an effluent storage pond. From the effluent storage pond, treated wastewater will be utilized for onsite surface irrigation disposal of approximately 10 acres of vineyards. To accompany your review of the reduced project description and associated changes to the proposed wastewater treatment systems, attached is a revised wastewater feasibility study. Also attached is the revised project description prepared by our Client’s Attorney and a letter from John McDowell (Napa County Planning Deputy Director) regarding the Categorical Exemption from CEQA determination for the recent submittal/reduced project description for the Use Permit modification (P12‐00122). I’ve also Summit Engineering, Inc
463 Aviation Blvd., Suite 200  Santa Rosa, CA 95403  t 707 527-0775




www.summit-sr.com
SUMMIT ENGINEERING, INC. Page 2 Project No.: 2013044 October 29, 2015
attached our responses to your previous questions from last April; although the proposed wastewater flows have changed, the general responses still apply. We trust that these updated reports provide enough information for you to be able to issue conditional approval of the proposed pretreatment and disposal approach to Kim Withrow with Napa County PBES. ENCLOSURES A – Wastewater Feasibility Study B – Camus Vineyards’ Reduced Project Description C – September 1, 2015 letter from John McDowell regarding Categorical Exemption D – April 24, 2015 letter from Summit Please contact us with any questions. Gina Giacone, P.E. Associate cc: Kay Philippakis, Farella Braun + Martel LLP Kim Withrow, Napa County PBES P:\Project\2013\2013044 Caymus Rutherford UP Assistance\Outgoing\SFRWQCB\LT 2015‐10‐29MG.docx PM/xx CAYMUS VINEYARDS WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM OVERVIEW Project No. 2013044
ENCLOSURE A WASTEWATER FEASIBILITY STUDY WASTEWATER FEASIBILITY STUDY CAYMUS VINEYARDS Rurtherford, California APN 030‐200‐066 CIVIL STRUCTURAL ELECTRICAL WATER|WASTEWATER Project No. 2013044 September 25, 2015
Caymus Vineyards Wastewater Feasibility Study September 25, 2015 SUMMIT ENGINEERING, INC. Project No. 2013044 TABLE OF CONTENTS PROJECT OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................................................ 1 SITE DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................................................... 1 WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM .................................................................................................................. 1 Process Wastewater Characteristics ................................................................................................................... 2 Sanitary Sewage Characteristics ......................................................................................................................... 3 Process Wastewater Design Flows (Phase I) ....................................................................................................... 4 Sanitary Sewage (Phase I) ................................................................................................................................... 4 Process Wastewater Design Flows (Phase II) ...................................................................................................... 5 Sanitary Sewage Design Flows (Phase II) ............................................................................................................ 5 Total Wastewater Design Flows (Phase II) .......................................................................................................... 5 Wastewater Conveyance, Treatment and Disposal (Phase II) ............................................................................ 6 Other Considerations .............................................................................................................................................. 7 ODOR CONTROL .................................................................................................................................................. 7 GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION ................................................................................................................... 7 PROTECTION ........................................................................................................................................................ 8 ALTERNATIVE COURSES OF ACTION .................................................................................................................... 8 SOLID WASTES ..................................................................................................................................................... 8 LIST OF ENCLOSURES Enclosure A: Enclosure B: Overall Site Plan (UP1), Wastewater Treatment Plan (UP4), Concept Wastewater Utility Plan (UP5), Existing Wastewater Treatment (UP8) PW Pond/Effluent Dispersal Water Balance (Phase II) Caymus Vineyards SUMMIT ENGINEERING, INC. Wastewater Feasibility Study September 25, 2015 Project No. 2013044 PROJECT OVERVIEW Caymus Vineyards is applying for a Use Permit Modification for the existing winery facility located in Rutherford, Napa County, California with a Phase I production capacity of 110,000 gallons and a Phase II maximum capacity of 660,000 gallons. The existing Lyve System (process wastewater) and existing leachfield (sanitary sewage) will be used for Phase I. A combined process wastewater (PW) and sanitary sewage (SS) system (improved Lyve System) will be used for Phase II. An overview of this management system is discussed in this report. SITE DESCRIPTION The property is located at the intersection of Rutherford and Conn Creek Roads, east of the town of Rutherford with Conn Creek running along the eastern edge of the winery facility and through the middle of the parcel. The parcel is relatively flat except for the banks of Conn Creek. The existing winery facility includes an assortment of buildings (some of which will be demolished and rebuilt). An existing irrigation pond and vineyards are located to the east of Conn Creek. WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PW and SS will initially continue to be plumbed and treated separately in their respective, existing systems. For Phase II, PW and SS will initially continue to be plumbed separately and will then be combined at the existing Lyve System which will remain in Building B3. Effluent will be sent from Lyve System, through a 2” forcemain (utilizing an existing 2” pipeline that crosses Conn Creek) out to the existing irrigation pond, which is proposed to be converted to an effluent storage pond. From the effluent storage pond, effluent will be utilized for onsite surface irrigation disposal. This section of the wastewater feasibility study details the PW and SS characteristics and proposed wastewater management system. 1 Caymus Vineyards Wastewater Feasibility Study September 25, 2015 SUMMIT ENGINEERING, INC. Project No. 2013044 PROCESS WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS PW will consist primarily of wastewater collected at floor drains and trenches within the winery, receiving, crush, tank, and washdown areas. Any exterior tank and process areas not under a roof will be provided with automated diversion capability to provide a means of routing rainwater to the storm drainage system when those areas are not in use for process purposes. No distillation will occur at the facility; hence there will be no stillage waste. Typical winery wastewater characteristics are as summarized below: Crushing Season Non‐crushing Season Characteristic Units Range Range pH ‐‐ 2.5 ‐ 9.5 3.5 ‐ 11.0 Dissolved Oxygen mg/L 0.5 ‐ 8.5 1.0 ‐ 10.0 BODs mg/L 500 – 12,000 300 – 3,500 COD mg/L 800 – 15,000 500 – 6,000 Grease mg/L 5 ‐ 30 5 ‐ 50 Settleable Solids mg/L 25 ‐ 100 2 ‐ 100 Nonfilterable Residue mg/L 40 ‐ 800 10 ‐ 400 Volatile Suspended Solids mg/L 150 ‐ 700 80 ‐ 350 Total Dissolved Solids mg/L 80 – 2,900 80 – 2,900 Nitrogen mg/L 1 ‐ 40 1 ‐ 40 Nitrate mg/L 0.5 ‐ 4.8 ‐ Phosphorous mg/L 1 ‐ 10 1 ‐ 40 Sodium mg/L 35 ‐ 200 35 ‐ 200 Alkalinity (CaCO3) mg/L 40 ‐ 730 10 ‐ 730 Chloride mg/L 3 ‐ 250 3 ‐ 250 Sulfate mg/L 10 ‐ 75 20 ‐ 75 2 Caymus Vineyards SUMMIT ENGINEERING, INC. Wastewater Feasibility Study September 25, 2015 Project No. 2013044 SANITARY SEWAGE CHARACTERISTICS Sanitary sewage (SS) will consist primarily of wastewater generated from restrooms, laboratory, employee kitchen, and tasting room facilities. Typical sanitary sewage characteristics are as summarized below: Raw Wastewater1 Characteristic Units Range BODs mg/L 110 ‐ 220 Grease mg/L 50‐100 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) mg/L 100 ‐ 220 Volatile Suspended Solids mg/L 80 ‐ 165 Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) mg/L 250 ‐ 500 Nitrogen mg/L 20 ‐ 40 Nitrate mg/L 0 Phosphorous mg/L 4 ‐ 8 Alkalinity (CaCO3) mg/L 50 ‐ 100 Chloride mg/L 30 ‐ 50 Sulfate mg/L 20 ‐ 30 1
Typical composition of untreated domestic wastewater, Metcalf & Eddy, “Wastewater Engineering, Third Edition”, 1991 3 Caymus Vineyards SUMMIT ENGINEERING, INC. Wastewater Feasibility Study September 25, 2015 Project No. 2013044 PROCESS WASTEWATER DESIGN FLOWS (PHASE I) Based on typical flow data from wineries of similar size and characteristics and corresponding PW generation rates, projected flows are calculated as follows: Annual Volume Annual production (projected) = 110,000 gal wine/year PW generation rate (assumed) = 4 gal PW/gal wine PW flow = 110,000 gal wine x 4 gal PW/gal wine = 440,000 gal PW/year Average Day Flow 440,000 gal PW/365 days = 1,210 gal PW/day Average Day, Peak Month Flow The harvest month of September accounts for approximately 16.4 percent of the annual PW flow. 440,000 gal PW x (0.164) = 2,400 gal PW/day 30 day Napa County Peak Day 110,000 gallons wine x 1.5 = 2,750 gal PW/day 60 day harvest The peak PW flow rate for Phase I is expected to be 2,750 gal/day. All PW generated from Phase I will continue to be treated in the existing Lyve System. As approved in the existing Very Minor Modification (#P08‐00519‐VMM), hold and haul will be utilized for the disposal of treated PW from the Lyve System. SANITARY SEWAGE (PHASE I) Sanitary sewage generated from the existing approved activities will continue to be disposed of in the existing leachfield system. No change in SS flows are proposed. Therefore, no changes are proposed to the existing system. 4 Caymus Vineyards SUMMIT ENGINEERING, INC. Wastewater Feasibility Study September 25, 2015 Project No. 2013044 PROCESS WASTEWATER DESIGN FLOWS (PHASE II) Annual Volume Annual production (projected) = 660,000 gal wine/year PW generation rate (assumed) = 4 gal PW/gal wine PW flow = 660,000 gal wine x 4 gal PW/gal wine = 2,640,000 gal PW/year Average Day Flow 2,640,000 gal PW/365 days = 7,240 gal PW/day Average Day, Peak Month Flow The harvest month of September accounts for approximately 16.4 percent of the annual PW flow. 2,640,000 gal PW x (0.164) = 14,400 gal PW/day 30 day Napa County Peak Day 660,000 gallons wine x 1.5 = 16,500 gal PW/day 60 day harvest The peak PW flow rate for Phase II is expected to be 16,500 gal/day. SANITARY SEWAGE DESIGN FLOWS (PHASE II) The proposed winery SS flows for Phase II at Caymus will consist of typical wastewater generated from restrooms, laboratory, and employee kitchen facilities. The anticipated peak winery SS flow is summarized below: Peak Tasting Day w/o Event Employee (full‐time) 42 x 15 gpcd = 630 gal/day Employee (part‐time) 14 x 15 gpcd = 210 gal/day Tasting Visitors 450 x 3 gpcd = 1,350 gal/day Total = 2,190 gal/day Peak Tasting Day w/ Event Employee (full‐time) Employee (part‐time) Tasting Visitors Event Visitors Total 42 14 450 100 x x x x 15 15 3 15 gpcd gpcd gpcd gpcd = = = = = 630 210 1,350 1,500 3,690 gal/day gal/day gal/day gal/day gal/day The peak SS flow rate associated with Phase II is expected to be 3,690 gal/day. TOTAL WASTEWATER DESIGN FLOWS (PHASE II) The peak flow rate from the two waste streams for Phase II is expected to be 20,190gpd (16,500 gpd of PW and 3,690 gpd of SS). 5 Caymus Vineyards Wastewater Feasibility Study September 25, 2015 SUMMIT ENGINEERING, INC. Project No. 2013044 WASTEWATER CONVEYANCE, TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL (PHASE II) The winery treatment and disposal system for Phase II will consist of the components described below. Refer to the wastewater management system schematic in Enclosure A for a flow diagram of the wastewater management system. 1) Initial screening – Provided by screened baskets and strainers installed on the trench drains and floor drains within the winery. Screen opening sizes will be approximately 1/4 inch for exterior drains and 1/8 inch for interior drains. 2) Gravity collection system – New gravity collection piping to serve the winery PW and SS should be designed to provide low maintenance and no infiltration or exfiltration. Piping must satisfy Uniform Plumbing Code and local requirements. 3) Septic Tanks – There is a series of existing septic tanks that will be continued to be used. These tanks will overflow SS to the existing Lyve system (a pump sump may be required). 4) Pump Sump – PW that will following the automated stormwater diversion valve, may need to be collected in a sump and pumped to the existing Lyve system. 5) Screening/Settling Tank – It is proposed to utilize the existing solids screen prior to sending PW to the equalization zone/Lyve system. 6) Lyve System – Treatment of combined wastewater will be accomplished in the existing Lyve treatment system which is a packaged treatment systems specifically oriented towards winery wastewater. Lyve utilizes aerobic activated sludge treatment in a modular design. These systems are capable of producing high quality effluent while taking up a small footprint. A custom, above grade concrete treatment tank will be utilized for the Lyve system. Internal zones are proposed to be located inside the treatment tank to compartmentalize the treatment system. a. Equalization Zone/tank – Wastewater will first be combined in an equalization zone/tank provided to allow for equalization (EQ) of peak flows prior to treatment in the Lyve system. Aeration will be provided in the equalization zone to allow for adequate mixing of the wastewater to occur. b. pH adjustment – A HACH pH analyzer/controller and a chemical dosing pump will be provided by Lyve for automatic adjusting for influent pH to remain between 6.8 and 7.2 pH units. Magnesium hydroxide will be used for pH adjustment in the wastewater stream. c. MBBR Zone – A zone will be provided in the treatment tank for biological treatment. The MBBR zone will contain plastic media which provides surface area for biomass to develop. Aeration is provided in this zone to promote biological growth and degradation of wastewater flows. d. Activated Sludge Zone – An activated sludge zone is provided in the treatment tank downstream of the MBBR zone to further treat process wastewater flows through activated sludge treatment. A coarse bubble diffuser is provided to allow for mixing and further degradation of wastewater flows. 6 Caymus Vineyards Wastewater Feasibility Study September 25, 2015 SUMMIT ENGINEERING, INC. Project No. 2013044 e. Clarifier ‐ Following the activated sludge zone, the wastewater will pass into a clarifier where clean effluent decants off the top and solids settle to the bottom. Clarified effluent will flow into a pump sump where it will be pumped out to the effluent storage pond. Solids that settle to the bottom of the clarifier will be pumped back to the selector zone. A measured amount of sludge is wasted to sludge digesters. f.
Sludge Digester Zone – A sludge digester zone will be provided in the main treatment tank for storage and digestion of wasted activated sludge from the clarifier. Periodic off‐hauling or onsite pressing of the accumulated solids in the digester will be required unless an onsite sludge dewatering system is installed. A control panel is and will continue to be provided for control of the blowers, pH monitoring and correction system, foam control, any influent pumps, effluent pump and other ancillary items. This system will include web based monitoring capabilities. 7) Effluent Pumps –Duplex pumps will be capable of pumping treated effluent, with lead/lag and alternating pump capabilities, from the existing Lyve System out to the effluent pond. 8) Flow measurement – An inline flow measurement device will be provided to measure flows from the Lyve System to the effluent storage pond. 9) Effluent storage pond – Effluent from the Lyve treatment system for Phase II will flow to an approximate 1.7 MGallon effluent storage pond (an existing irrigation pond that will be converted to an effluent storage pond). 10) Flow measurement – An inline magnetic flow measurement device will be provided following the irrigation pump. This will allow for measurement of flows from the effluent storage pond to the surface disposal system. 11) Filtration/Disinfection ‐ Prior to surface disposal, effluent will go through a media filter and disinfected (via UV or Peroxyacetic acid) to meet Title 22, recycled water standards. 12) Effluent Surface Disposal –Final reuse (disposal) of effluent shall be accomplished by drip irrigation of a minimum of 10.0 acres (Phase II) of vineyard. The irrigation demand of the vineyard far exceeds the estimated annual wastewater volume (see Pond Water Balance in Enclosure C). To meet the additional irrigation demand the treated wastewater will be supplemented with irrigation water. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS ODOR CONTROL There should be no noxious odors from a properly designed and operated treatment system. See Alternative Courses of Action for operation alternatives. GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION The nearest water well to the wastewater treatment and disposal system will be a minimum of 100 feet. No disposal of reclaimed wastewater will occur within 100 feet of any existing wells. Irrigation/disposal of treated effluent is considered a beneficial use and is considered an effective means to 7 Caymus Vineyards Wastewater Feasibility Study September 25, 2015 SUMMIT ENGINEERING, INC. Project No. 2013044 protect groundwater quality. PROTECTION Exposed wastewater treatment facilities should be posted with appropriate warning signs. The treatment areas will be protected to restrict access and potential damage to the system. ALTERNATIVE COURSES OF ACTION Although no operational difficulties are foreseen, the following additional courses of action would be available if necessary for the PW system:  Additional stages of treatment to increase effluent quality  Increased use of irrigation/disposal area to increase discharge capacity  Aeration in the effluent storage pond to improve effluent quality The effluent storage pond will be sized for retention of wastewater effluent through the majority of the rainy season with minimal discharges to irrigation areas (if surface applied). Should there be a winter with more rainfall than the design condition; several operational procedures are available to compensate:  Additional water conservation at winery  Light irrigation during periods between storms – not exceeding the assimilative capacity of the soil  Increased irrigation during the months of planned irrigation  Pumping and truck transfer of treated and diluted wastewater to an approved treatment plant or land disposal site SOLID WASTES Solid wastes from the winery include primarily pomace, seeds, and stems. The estimated quantities of these wastes (at ultimate capacity) are as follows: 1tongrapes
PhaseIIAnnualTotal 660,000galwine 35% 1,400tons 165galwine
Based on a unit weight of 38 pounds per cubic foot, the annual volume of solids wastes would be: 2000lb
2,800,000lb 1,400tons 1ton
1ft
1yd
2,800,000lbs 2729yd 38lb 27ft
These organic solids will be composted, spread on the vineyard, and disked in as a soil conditioner and supplemental nutrient source on a routine basis. This quantity of solids wastes is to be applied to the approximate onsite vineyard or will be hauled to an off‐site composting location to reduce the application depth, if needed. 8 Caymus Vineyards SUMMIT ENGINEERING, INC. Wastewater Feasibility Study September 25, 2015 Project No. 2013044 Contact: Gina Giacone gina@summit‐sr.com (707) 636‐9162 SUMMIT ENGINEERING, INC. 463 Aviation Blvd., Suite 200 Santa Rosa, CA 95403 707 527‐0775 sfo@summit‐sr.com CAYMUS VINEYARDS ENCLOSURE A OVERALL SITE PLAN (UP1) WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLAN (UP4) CONCEPT WASTEWATER UTILITY PLAN (UP5) EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT (UP8) Summit Engineering, Inc
463 Aviation Blvd., Suite 200 • Santa Rosa, CA 95403
707-527-0775 • www.summit-sr.com
SUMMIT
Summit Engineering, Inc
SUMMIT
SUMMIT
SUMMIT
CAYMUS VINEYARDS ENCLOSURE B PW POND EFFLUENT DISPERSAL WATER BALANCE (PHASE II) SUMMIT ENGINEERING, INC.
CAYMUS - RUTHERFORD
DESIGN CRITERIA
FULL PRODUCTION
Annual Production
PW Generation Rate
Annual PW Flow
Months of Harvest
Average Day PW Flow
Peak SS Flows
660,000
4.0
2,640,000
Aug-Oct
7,240
11,500
14,400
2,190
3,690
PROJECT NO.
BY:
CHK:
gal wine/year
gal PW/gal wine
gal PW/year
gal
gal
gal
gal
gal
PW/day
PW/day
PW/day
SS/day
SS/day
Lyve System Inflow/Outflow
7,000 gal PW/day
1.706 Mgal
Total HRT
112.3 days
112.3 days
Month
August
September
October
November
December
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
Total
a
Monthly
Percentage of
Annual Flowa
(%)
10.5%
16.4%
12.9%
7.4%
6.4%
6.6%
7.2%
7.6%
6.8%
6.4%
5.6%
6.2%
100%
Monthly PW
Flow
(Mgal)
0.276
0.433
0.340
0.196
0.169
0.173
0.191
0.201
0.179
0.170
0.148
0.164
2.640
Approx
Monthly SS
Flow
(Mgal)
0.071
0.069
0.071
0.069
0.071
0.071
0.064
0.071
0.069
0.071
0.069
0.071
0.835
Page 1 of 5
Monthly
PW & SS
Flow
(Mgal)
0.347
0.502
0.411
0.264
0.240
0.244
0.255
0.272
0.248
0.241
0.216
0.234
3.475
Average Daily
Flow
(gal/day)
11,188
16,722
13,262
8,812
7,750
7,877
9,107
8,784
8,251
7,779
7,213
7,563
2013044
GG
CAYMUS - RUTHERFORD
Climate Data
Reference
(in)
(in)
(in)
(in)
(in)
August
31
6.4
12.1
9.3
0.1
0.2
4.9
8.7
6.7
0.4
0.6
September 30
31
3.5
5.7
4.4
2.1
3.2
October
30
1.6
2.5
1.9
5.5
8.5
November
31
1.2
1.7
1.3
5.9
9.1
December
31
1.0
1.6
1.2
7.9
12.1
January
28
1.5
2.2
1.7
5.9
9.1
February
March
31
2.9
3.8
2.9
4.7
7.2
April
30
4.7
5.9
4.5
1.9
2.9
31
5.8
9.0
6.9
0.4
0.6
May
June
30
6.9
11.0
8.5
0.1
0.2
31
7.2
13.5
10.4
0.0
0.0
July
Total
365
47.7
77.7
59.8
34.9
53.6
a
b
c
d
e
f
Month
Days
Average
Tempa
(F)
70.7
67.6
61.7
52.3
46.6
46
50.2
52.3
56.3
62.4
68
71.1
PROJECT NO.
BY:
CHK:
Page 2 of 5
2013044
GG
0
(in)
0.2
0.9
4.9
12.7
13.7
18.3
13.7
10.9
4.4
0.9
0.2
0.0
80.9
Consulting Civil Engineer
Water Balance - PH
Bottom Width
Bottom Length
Length:Width
Depth
(ft)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
85.0'
240.0'
3.0
0.4
Length
(ft)
240
246
252
258
264
270
276
282
288
294
300
CAYMUS - RUTHERFORD
Pond Worksheet
Bottom Radius
Top Radius
Depth
Freeboard
Width
(ft)
85
91
97
103
109
115
121
127
133
139
145
Page 3 of 5
Radius
(ft)
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
PROJECT NO.
BY:
CHK:
15.0'
35.0'
10.0'
2.0'
Start Month
Min. Depth
Divert Volume
Initial Depth
Surface Area
(ft2)
20,208
22,139
24,136
26,197
28,324
30,516
32,773
35,096
37,483
39,936
42,454
2013044
GG
0
August
3.0'
3.69 Mgal
4.0'
Total Volume
(Mgal)
0.000
0.158
0.331
0.520
0.724
0.944
1.180
1.434
1.706
1.995
2.303
ting Civil Eng Pond Water Balance - PHASE II
Month
August
September
October
November
December
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
Total
Month
August
September
October
November
December
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
Total
Tank Evaporation
(Mgal)
-0.0012
-0.0009
-0.0006
-0.0003
-0.0002
-0.0002
-0.0002
-0.0004
-0.0006
-0.0009
-0.0011
-0.0013
-0.008
Actual PW
Inflow
(Mgal)
0.347
0.502
0.411
0.264
0.240
0.244
0.255
0.272
0.248
0.241
0.216
0.234
3.475
PROJECT NO.
BY:
CHK:
CAYMUS - RUTHERFORD
Lyve System
10 Year
Precipitation
(Mgal)
0.000020
0.000080
0.000419
0.001096
0.001176
0.001574
0.001176
0.000937
0.000379
0.000080
0.000020
0.000000
0.00696
Initial Volume
Pond
Evaporation
PW Inflow
(Mgal)
0.724
0.609
0.663
0.733
0.888
1.145
1.487
1.706
1.706
1.706
1.500
1.118
(Mgal)
-0.165
-0.113
-0.076
-0.034
-0.025
-0.024
-0.037
-0.069
-0.106
-0.162
-0.188
-0.208
-1.206
(Mgal)
0.346
0.501
0.411
0.265
0.241
0.246
0.256
0.273
0.247
0.240
0.215
0.233
3.474
Volume Change
(Mgal)
0.346
0.501
0.411
0.265
0.241
0.246
0.256
0.273
0.247
0.240
0.215
0.233
3.474
Pond No.
10 Year
Precipitation
(Mgal)
0.004
0.016
0.085
0.224
0.240
0.321
0.240
0.191
0.077
0.016
0.004
0.000
1.420
2013044
GG
0
Divert
Volume
(Mgal)
0.346
0.501
0.411
0.265
0.241
0.246
0.256
0.273
0.247
0.240
0.215
0.233
3.474
Surface
Area
(ft2)
Volume
Change
Total
Volume
Divert
Volume
Final Volume
(Mgal)
0.185
0.404
0.420
0.455
0.456
0.543
0.459
0.395
0.219
0.094
0.031
0.025
3.688
(Mgal)
0.909
1.013
1.083
1.188
1.345
1.687
1.946
2.101
1.925
1.800
1.531
1.144
(Mgal)
0.300
0.350
0.350
0.300
0.200
0.200
0.241
0.395
0.219
0.300
0.413
0.420
3.688
(Mgal)
0.609
0.663
0.733
0.888
1.145
1.487
1.706
1.706
1.706
1.500
1.118
0.724
Page 4 of 5
*neglect precipitation and assume up to 7,000 gpd in & out
208
208
208
208
208
208
208
208
208
208
208
208
Final
Pond
Depth
(ft)
3.4
3.7
4.0
4.7
5.8
7.1
8.0
8.0
8.0
7.2
5.7
4.0
Volume
Check
Surface
Area
(Mgal)
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.241
0.395
0.219
0.094
0.000
0.000
0.949
28,324
27,048
27,686
28,324
29,859
32,322
35,334
37,483
37,483
37,483
35,573
32,096
(ft2)
ting Civil Eng
Vineyard
Pasture
Vineyard
Pasture
Month
August
September
October
November
December
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
Total
Reference ETa
(in)
6.4
4.9
3.5
1.6
1.2
1.0
1.5
2.9
4.7
5.8
6.9
7.2
47.7
PROJECT NO.
BY:
CHK:
CAYMUS - RUTHERFORD
Pasture Crop
b
Coefficient
Vineyard
Crop
c
Coefficient
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.5
0.3
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.6
0.7
0.6
10.0
2013044
GG
0
acres
acres
acres
acres
Pasture ETd
Vineyard
d
ET
Precipitatione
(in)
5.8
4.4
3.2
1.3
0.9
0.8
1.2
2.3
4.2
5.2
6.2
6.5
42.1
(in)
2.9
1.3
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.8
3.4
4.9
4.6
18.0
(in)
0.2
0.6
3.2
8.5
9.1
12.1
9.1
7.2
2.9
0.6
0.2
0.0
53.6
Irrigation
f
Demand
(in)
2.7
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.8
4.7
4.6
15.5
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(Mgal)
0.746
0.177
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.750
1.280
1.254
4.2
Operating Days
g
per Month
(d)
31
30
16
14
5
6
5
12
13
16
17
30
195.0
Percolation
h
Capacity
(in)
446.40
432.00
230.40
201.60
72.00
86.40
72.00
172.80
187.20
230.40
244.80
432.00
2808.0
(Mgal)
121.294
117.381
62.603
54.778
19.564
23.476
19.564
46.953
50.865
62.603
66.516
117.381
763.0
Assimilative
i
Capacity
(in)
449.1
432.7
230.4
201.6
72.0
86.4
72.0
172.8
187.2
233.2
249.5
436.6
2823.5
Effluent
Applied
(Mgal) (Mgal)
122.040 0.300
117.558 0.350
62.603
0.350
54.778
0.300
19.564
0.200
23.476
0.200
19.564
0.241
46.953
0.395
50.865
0.219
63.354
0.300
67.796
0.413
118.635 0.420
767.2
3.7
Page 5 of 5
(in)
1.10
1.29
1.29
1.10
0.74
0.74
0.89
1.46
0.81
1.10
1.52
1.55
13.6
Excess
Capacity
(Mgal)
121.74
117.21
62.25
54.48
19.36
23.28
19.32
46.56
50.65
63.05
67.38
118.22
763.50
CAYMUS VINEYARDS WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM OVERVIEW Project No. 2013044
ENCLOSURE B CAYMUS VINEYARDS REDUCED PROJECT DESCRIPTION KATHERINE PHILIPPAKIS
[email protected]
D 707.967.4154
October 19, 2015
Via E-Mail [email protected] and hand delivery of five complete copies
Ms. Laura Anderson, Deputy County Counsel
Office of Napa County Counsel
County of Napa Administration
1195 Third Street, Suite 210
Napa, California 94559
Re:
Use Permit Modification Application No. P12-00221, APN 030-200-066
Caymus Vineyards’ Reduced Project Description
Dear Laura:
As you are aware, recently Caymus Vineyards (“Caymus”) has spent a considerable
amount of time analyzing the winery’s current and future business plans and operational needs.
As a result, Caymus submitted a reduced project description on August 3, 2015 (“Reduced
Project Description”). In response to the Reduced Project Description on September 1, 2015 the
Planning Department responded that the Reduced Project Description would qualify for a
Categorical Exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and requested
that the project plans and technical studies be updated to reflect the current project description.
In response, please refer to the following detailed Reduced Project Description, accompanied by
a table comparing the previous request and the current/reduced request, revised site plans,
revised traffic analysis, revised water availability analysis, revised stormwater analysis, and
revised wastewater analysis.
Briefly, the Reduced Project Description now consists of the following:
1) Phase One:
a) Demolition of Buildings B2, B6, B7 and B8; remodel of Building B5
b) Recognition of pre-1990 marketing events (two dinners for 50 guests per
month, one 100- person auction event, one 250-person harvest event, three 50person winery lunches per month, two Friends of the Winery events which
historically had up to 1,800 people but which are now proposed to have up to 500
people);
c) Installation of a fire suppression system within B5 and associated outdoor
water storage tanks;
Ms. Laura Anderson
October 19, 2015
Page 2
d) Remodel of Building B3 to reduce the size to no more than 1,800 s.f.; removal
of concrete pad on the east side of B3 after the 2016 harvest and removal of the retaining
wall and slab immediately to the south of the bridge on the west bank of the creek;
restoration of the creek bank
e) Recognition of Winery Development Area of approximately 86,987 s.f. within
the 98,000 s.f. footprint that Caymus and the County agreed in the Judgment was the size
of the 1990 winery development area;
f) Construction of new access drives, onsite roundabout and new parking areas
for the mixed use of visitors and employees; closure of the existing center driveways and
removal of unnecessary impervious surfaces, including the area around the existing truck
scale
g) On-site consumption and sale of wine pursuant to AB 2004;
h) Food and wine pairing for existing visitors as per the definition of marketing in
Napa County Code;
i) Maintain Building B9 (existing family residence) for residential use during
Phase One.
2) Phase Two:
a) Demolition of Building B9 and construction of an 8,205 square foot
agricultural greenhouse (visitors to be permitted to tour the greenhouse, but no
tasting room/bar to be located within it);
b) Increase of annual production by 550,000 gallons, for a total maximum
annual production of 660,000 gallons per year, and
c) Upgrade existing process wastewater system.
Although the enclosed table summarizes the difference between this reduced project
description and the project description previously filed with the County, it may be helpful to
summarize a few key elements of the proposal here:


The proposed production capacity will drop from the current (and originally
requested) level of 1,800,000 gallons to an initial Phase One maximum of 110,000
gallons and a Phase Two maximum of 660,000 gallons – a reduction by
approximately two-thirds from the current and previously requested production
levels.
Per County Code sections 18.104.210 and 18.104.250(C), because Caymus
remains within its pre-WDO winery development area, its production capacity
remains exempt from the 75% rule, as is the case with all pre-WDO wineries
whose development does not exceed one hundred percent of the winery existing as
of the date of the adoption of the WDO. In the case of Caymus, this was
determined in the original Judgment to have been 98,000 s.f., and the proposed
85,374 s.f. development area is much less than one hundred percent of the 1990
size. Pursuant to a Development Agreement with the County, however, Caymus
will voluntarily agree to subject its wine production between 110,000 and 550,000
gallons to the 75% rule.
Ms. Laura Anderson
October 19, 2015
Page 3







Employee numbers will be capped at current levels of 42 FT and 14 PT.
The existing public visitation will remain unchanged; no new private tours and
tastings will be added.
The pre-WDO hospitality plan will be recognized but no new marketing events
will be added.
No new pipeline across the creek will be proposed (the existing irrigation line will
be converted to effluent transmission line in Phase two), and thus no streambed
alteration agreement will be necessary.
No new parking spaces on the south side of B5 will be constructed.
Both the proposed production and visitation activities will fall below the current
level of operations and thus below the current physical baseline for purposes of
environmental analysis: the visitor numbers will remain at or below existing
conditions, and the production capacity will drop by approximately two-thirds
from the amounts originally contemplated for this use permit and authorized for
2013-2016 under the Judgment.
Caymus will maintain its current production levels through 2016.
With regard to the request for revised studies and plans, we have prepared the
following:
1. Water Availability Analysis, Summit Engineering dated September 25, 2015
provides technical analysis of the increased water demand from 110,000 gallons
per year to 660,000 gallons per year, concluding that the project will result in an
additional 1.4 acre-feet per year. However, the proposal to accommodate the
increased process wastewater is to treat the water to tertiary standards in the Lyve
system. Further, as part of Phase Two (increased production) the existing Lyve
system will be upgrading to accommodate the combination of process and
domestic wastewater which will result in 24 acre-feet of treated water that will be
used for irrigation. Therefore as part of this project there will be a net reduction
of water demand by 17.25 acre-feet per year or a water savings/conservation of
50% of the existing water demand.
2. Wastewater Feasibility Study, Summit Engineering dated September 25, 2015
provides technical evidence to support that due to a reduction of existing
demands, the existing process wastewater system (the “Lyve” system) and
existing leachfield for the sanitary sewer will remain in use for Phase One (no
new production). For the Phase Two production increase, the existing Lyve
system will be improved to accommodate a combined process wastewater system
and sanitary sewage system, and the existing irrigation pond will be converted to
an effluent storage pond.
3. Stormwater Control Plan Revised Memo and Figures, Summit Engineering
September 25, 2015 discusses that the Stormwater Control Plan dated April 28,
2015 outlines the stormwater control measures to be used however the memo
describes that in response to the Reduced Project Description the parking lot south
of Building B5 has been eliminated and the water tanks and trash enclosures to
the north of B5 have been relocated to an existing impervious surface. Therefore,
Ms. Laura Anderson
October 19, 2015
Page 4
the size of the treatment facilities have been reduced to account for the reduced
impervious areas, and the figures describe the reductions.
4. Use Permit Site Plans (full size and reductions), Summit Engineering, September
28, 2015 show the reductions of the parking and relocation of the water tanks and
trash enclosures.
5. Focused Traffic Study, W-trans, October 13, 2015 explains that because the
proposed project would result in either a decrease or no net increase in the number
of vehicle trips there is either no change or a minor benefit to the local
intersections and roadway segments. It should be noted that the north driveway
currently meets the warrants for a left hand turn lane; however, it is an existing
driveway which will be used for existing visitor access. Production traffic will
access the site via the south driveway, and this road does not meet the left hand
turn lane warrant criteria.
We trust that the Department has sufficient information to move forward. As described
above, both the production and visitation numbers fall at or below the existing level of operations
at the facility, and thus the project results in a considerable reduction in environmental effects
from the existing physical baseline. We are happy to provide further materials on this topic
should you so desire.
We recognize that a tremendous investment of time and goodwill has been made by both
parties in an attempt to make this a project of which we are all proud, and we appreciate your
ongoing commitment to work with us to finalize the application and prepare it for hearing.
Kind regards,
Katherine Philippakis
Ms. Laura Anderson
October 19, 2015
Page 5
cc:
Charles J. Wagner
Shannon Darrall
Michael Kluczko
Michael T. Carlson, Esq.
Christopher Garrett, Esq.
Enc:
Summit Engineering Water Availability Analysis, September 25, 2015
Summit Engineering Wastewater Feasibility Study, September 25, 2015
Summit Engineering Stormwater Control Plan Revised Memo and Figures, September
25, 2015
Summit Engineering Use Permit Site Plans (full size and reductions)
Focused Traffic Study, W-trans, October 13, 2015
Ms. Laura Anderson
October 19, 2015
Page 6
Annual Wine Production (gallons) Original Project Description Employees ‐50 FT; 14 PT Average Visitors ‐346 weekday and 589 weekend Maximum Visitors ‐850 Marketing Events ‐Recognition of pre‐WDO events ‐Additional Events: a. Tastings with Meals 1/week
maximum 50 people b. Food Pairings 3/week maximum 30 people c. Tasting Events 10/year maximum 100 people Phase I: ‐Onsite road work for access and parking areas ‐Closure of center driveway ‐ Fire suppression systems ‐ Removal of concrete pad on east side of B3 and remodel B3 to reduce size ‐Creek restoration, including removal of concrete pad on south side of bridge (former dumpster location) ‐Demolition of existing leach field on south side of B5 ‐Demolition of B2, B6, B7, B8 and B9; construction of new Building/Construction ‐1,800,000 in two phases: Phase I = 660,000 gallons Phase II = 1,800,000 gallons Current and Reduced Project Description ‐Maintain 1,800,000 for 2016 harvest during construction of Solano facility ‐Split Phase I into two parts: I(a) = 110,000 gallons I(b) = 660,000 gallons ‐Abandon Phase II request ‐Use existing conditions= 42 FT; 14 PT ‐Use existing conditions (= 208 weekday and 312 weekend) ‐Use existing conditions (=450) ‐Recognition of pre‐WDO events ‐No additional events Phase I: ‐Substantially similar, except that: ‐Wagner family house (B9) will remain in place as a residence until greenhouse is built ‐ leave concrete pad (glycol system) on east side of B3 through 2016 harvest ‐ eliminate parking on south side of B5 Phase II: ‐Demolition of B9 prior to construction of greenhouse Ms. Laura Anderson
October 19, 2015
Page 7
Wastewater System crush pad in location of B2 ‐Remodel of B5 Phase II: ‐Construction of greenhouse ‐Remodel of B4 ‐Phase I = 660,000 until wastewater improvements completed, use relocated existing Lyve system for combined wastewater ‐Phase II = 1,800,000 with conversion of pond, surface irrigation with treated water Water Use Per Summit analysis Traffic Improvements per W‐Trans analysis 28190\5088248.4
‐Phase I(a) = leave in place and use existing Lyve system for process wastewater, with treated water to be used for sub‐surface drip irrigation; ‐Phase I(b) = Make required improvements to existing Lyve system to combine the process and wastewater to accommodate the increase capacity to 660,000 g/yr. Reduced water usage based on significantly reduced production capacity and increase of treated water Both Phase 1 and Phase 2 total traffic from production and visitors will be substantially less than current traffic. Though no mitigation is needed for a reduction in traffic, Caymus will offer to contribute funds to allow the County to develop its own projects to improve traffic facilities in the project area CAYMUS VINEYARDS WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM OVERVIEW Project No. 2013044
ENCLOSURE C SEPTEMBER 1, 2015 LETTER FROM JOHN MCDOWELL REGARDING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CAYMUS VINEYARDS WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM OVERVIEW Project No. 2013044
ENCLOSURE D APRIL 24, 2015 LETTER FROM SUMMIT CIVIL
STRUCTURAL
ELECTRICAL
WATER | WASTEWATER
April 24, 2015
Melissa Gunter
SF Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board
1515 Clay Street
Oakland, CA 94612
RE:
Caymus Rutherford UP Assistance
Project Number
2013044
Dear Ms. Gunter:
Please see the responses to your questions from February 13, 2015 regarding Caymus Wastewater
Feasibility Study, in support of a complete Report of Waste Discharge:
6. The Wastewater Management System Overview (Wastewater Report) states that the combined
peak flow for Phase I is 21,360 gallons per day (gpd) and 49,860 gpd for Phase II. Clarify whether the
Phase II flows include the Phase I flows or whether it is an additional 49,860 gpd.
Response: The total flow for Phase II will be 49,860 gpd, which includes the flows generated for
Phase I.
8. Provide additional information on the types of chemicals that will be utilized at the facility that could
enter the waste stream, such as chemicals used to clean the equipment as well as those used in the
treatment system such as coagulants and disinfectants. I recognize that some additives will depend
on the final design of the system, so respond to the extent possible.
Response: Chemicals that will potentially be used at the facility for cleaning production equipment,
tanks and barrels that can enter the waste stream are:
•
Sodium Percarbonate
•
Flo Quat, disinfectant and sanitizer
•
Citric Acid Anhydrous
•
High purity potassium metabisulfite
•
Chemco MSR
•
Potassium Hydroxide Solid
The treatment system does not use any coagulants and disinfection will be provided by chlorination
or another Tittle 22 approved disinfection method.
463 Aviation Blvd., Suite 200  Santa Rosa, CA 95403  t 707 527-0775
www.summit-sr.com
Page 2
Project No.: 2013044
April 24, 2015
10. What is the expected effluent total nitrogen (nitrate if available) and biochemical oxygen demand
concentrations following the proposed treatment system? This could be a percent reduction at this
point that can be applied to the expected range of influent values provided in the Wastewater
Report.
Response: The expected effluent nitrogen and biochemical oxygen demand concentrations are of 10
mg/l. Effluent quality is expected to meet Tittle 22 requirements.
12. Is the existing effluent storage pond lined?
Response: The existing effluent storage pond is not currently lined but it is proposed to line the
pond as part of the design improvements.
17. The Wastewater Treatment Schematic indicates winery barrel washing. Clarify if the barrel washing
wastewater will be returned to the treatment system via the process water sump.
Response: Barrel washing wastewater will be sent to the treatment system via gravity, and will
ultimately be sent to the process wastewater sump.
19. Indicate the location of the existing septic system on the site layout figure. Also, provide additional
information on the existing septic tank system such as the number of tanks, dimensions, treatment
capacity, and the year the system was installed.
Response: The approximate locations of the existing septic tanks and leachfield systems are shown
on sheet UP8. The exact sizing of these systems and year of installation is not known. The tanks are
proposed to be reutilized as a means to collect and convey sanitary sewage to a new sump. The
leachfield systems will be abandoned.
22. California Department of Public Health Title 22 requires setback requirements from domestic water
supply wells related to irrigation and impoundments of recycled water. Figure UP4 depicts a
distance of 83 feet from a well to the bank of the effluent storage pond. What is the use of this well?
Response: The well located in the vicinity of the effluent storage pond is used for vineyard irrigation
and frost protection only. The storage pond has been resized to provide 100 ft setback from the well
as required. The new pond layout is included in the revised Wastewater Feasibility Study (see sheet
UP4).
23. The Pond Water Balance spreadsheet states that the applied irrigation area is pasture but it was also
mentioned that the vineyards would be irrigated. Provide a figure that depicts the areas that would
be irrigated with the treated wastewater.
Response: The pond water balance spreadsheet has been modified to reflect irrigation of vineyard
instead of pasture. The vineyard area that will be irrigated with the treated effluent is indicated on
the site plan included in the revised Wastewater Feasibility Study (See sheet UP 5).
\\Sei1\p\Project\2013\2013044 Caymus Rutherford UP Assistance\Technical Docs\WWater\WWFS\Revised UP WWFS 04-24-2015\LT 2015-04-24 MG.docx
CL/mf
Page 3
Project No.: 2013044
April 24, 2015
To help with your review of this wastewater management system, the following revised items are
included:
– Waste Water Feasibility Study
Please contact us with any questions.
Claudia Llerandi
Staff Engineer
cc:
Kay Philippakis, Farella Braun and Martel LLP
Kim Withrow, Napa County PBES
\\Sei1\p\Project\2013\2013044 Caymus Rutherford UP Assistance\Technical Docs\WWater\WWFS\Revised UP WWFS 04-24-2015\LT 2015-04-24 MG.docx
CL/mf

WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM OVERVIEW CAYMUS

Transcription

Similar documents

GAL VALLETENZANO (LOCAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

fellowes shredders

Why The Septic Guys?

twothousandthree

Read more About SARA

Wastewater Feasibility study

Florida Water Wastewater Report Vol 5 Issue 1

Bankless Channel

Stockholm Royal Seaport

Building a Pond: Step-by-Step Guide